sexual morality: its real purpose

What is the real purpose of sexual morality?

There are no doubt many opinions about this.  In this essay, we give our thoughts on this topic.


flowers near downtown plaza 3



The real purpose is to safeguard the family – both the spouses and the children.

With adultery, comes marriage failure (and many of the same ills listed below for fornication).

With fornication, comes unplanned pregnancies, abortions, fatherless children, sexually transmitted infections, emotional emptiness from having been used when love was not present in the relationship, etc.

From promiscuity, additionally, comes the very real difficulty to adjust to the monogamous life that marriage requires.  (As we noted in an essay six months ago, this is a serious hurdle for many young women who have become effectively addicted to the thrill of sexual novelty.)

From homosexuality or even bi-sexuality, comes the decline in interest and commitment in the male for marrying (or staying married) and caring for a wife and for having and rearing children.  As the male and female complement each other – and not just in terms of both being necessary for procreation – but in important psychological and emotional ways, homosexual relationships are limited and do not possess this emotional complementarity naturally.

From incest and pedophilia, comes ruined lives of the victims.

As they say, the moral commandments call men (and women) to freedom – freedom from our own very self-destructive tendencies.


other relevant thoughts

We are pro marriage and pro sex within marriage.

We have seen the very bitter fruits of the sexual revolution of the 1960s in the Western world.  We need to get back to some sanity and reject this harmful and destructive moral anarchy.  The solution is not to embrace the other extreme approach that burdens the married state.

Let’s not mystify what does not need to be mystified.  Let’s consider the collective experience of mankind.  (As well, let us take into account what we now know about human reproduction from science.  A sexual morality for marriage that is based largely on the Aristotelian view of human reproduction is no longer tenable.)

As to the sexual love of the spouses for each other within marriage, we disagree with those Christian religious authorities that seek to limit the range of expression of this love.  What is natural as regards the expression of sexual love in marriage?  Are we to base our definition of natural on what is natural for animals?  If we do so, we dehumanize human sexuality.  Read the arguments, lengthy ones at that, on the religious websites that condemn all sex acts in marriage that are not ordered to procreation (reproduction) – even when conception is not possible.

We provide a sample linked article.  As it is very lengthy, just read the brief conclusion.  It gives evidence of a very extreme position and extreme mindset.


Now, consider these 2 points we now offer.

1.  Except for a few species of primates, it appears that most lower forms of animal life are only capable of sex during the time that the female is fertile (and in “heat”, receptive to and desirous of sex with the male).  Similarly, the male of these various species is only interested in sex during this fertile time of the female, also known as the mating season.  Humans (both men and women) have a non-seasonal sexual capacity for arousal, desire and enjoyment that is not limited to the 2-3 days of each month that the woman is fertile and capable of conceiving.  This is a major qualitative difference between humans and animals that religious authorities often do not give sufficient consideration to.  Clearly, in humans, sex is not solely for purposes of procreation.

2.  Humans have a higher level of consciousness than animals that are largely driven by instincts.  Humans associate and attach meaning to their sexual experiences.  (Animals do not.)  This is true in marriage.  The spouses are not merely hungering for each other’s bodies to satiate or gratify their physical sex drives.  The emotions are intimately involved.  The lovemaking, far from being animalistic or bestial, is tender and giving and sweet.  And, as we noted above, the male and female complement each other – and not just in terms of both being necessary for procreation – but in psychological and emotional ways. This emotional and psychological complementarity is experienced during lovemaking.

Thus, if we are honest with ourselves, we see that what is natural for humans is likely very different from what is natural for animals.

We also reject this nonsense that asserts that the wife will be “objectified” by the husband through very frequent lovemaking (religious authorities use terms such as “sex” or “the marital act” – not wishing to indicate that love could be involved).  If the marriage is a loving one, this “objectification” is not possible.  As well, what some religious authorities are unaware of – or at least appear to be unaware of – is that women do have a libido or sex drive (perhaps in the feminine we should say “libida”).

What I would not so humbly suggest to Christian religious authorities, who wish to give moral guidance to married persons and to those preparing for marriage (engaged persons), is to keep in mind Jesus’ 2 commandments.  If the sexual love within their marriage is not violating those 2 commandments, then do not take it upon yourselves to condemn or unduly restrict this sexual love of the spouses for each other.  The sexual bonding of the spouses – that is independent of the procreative function of sex – is what serves to strengthen marriages.  This bonding is strengthened through frequent, joyous and mutually fulfilling lovemaking.  Placing needless and unwarranted restrictions on the spouses is not justified and serves to defile the marriage bed.  We believe that Christian religious authorities need to respect the dignity and the humanity of married persons.  If they are not doing so, then it becomes clear that their “morality” has ceased to be moral and is only about power and control (a recurring feature of organized religion throughout human history).

Our feature photo, above, was taken in one of the downtown plazas in San Francisco (near to the Ferry Building) on 20 September, 2014.

We have today, 10 December 2014, shared this essay here:

Sheila does a good job on her blog and you ought to visit her site.

copyright 2014 –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s